Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36330 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6100 of 2025 Applicant :- Shabbir Ahmad Alias Jhinku And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav (AOR A/Y 0016/12) holding brief of Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants an Sri Motilal, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application U/s 482 has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 10.10.2023 along with cognizance order dated 23.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 6099 of 2024 (State Vs. Sabbir Ahmad @ Jhinku and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Kandhrapur, District, Azamgarh, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a first information report stood lodged on 09.09.2023 under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC being No. 0257 relatable to the commission of the offences whereby the applicants hurled abuses and also demolished the temporary roof and administered threat. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that even prior to it in the year 2014 a first information report stood lodged against the opposite party No. 2 faction under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and further there happens to be an attempt on the part of the opposite party No. 2 to encroach and grab the land against which the applicants faction have already written and corresponded to the Revenue Authorities and there happens to be an order. He submits that it is the case of false implication. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that be that as it may, the contentions so sought to be raised are purely factual in nature. 5. Having heard the arguments so made across the bar, I am of the opinion that interference, at this stage, would not be appropriate particularly when offences are made out in the first information report and further so far as the theory of counter blast which is being sought to be injected, the same may be a defence which cannot be taken in the facts of the case particularly when the proceedings are pending since the year 2014. 6. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for consideration of his bail application in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 8. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad